h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I knew I shouldn't have replied to Mudhooks' last post, but I did so anyway because I was cross at being misrepresented. I won't make that mistake again. For the sake of an actual debate/discussion I'm going to move on (even though it kills me to do so).


Thinking of anti-Americanism as racism just 'feels' wrong to me, though I cannot put my finger on why exactly. Is it because the USA is a (multi-/meta-) culture based upon every race on the planet? Are the only ethnically American people the Native Americans?

I also feel that it is a form of bigotry that people lazy throw about too often, but does anti-Americanism perform a role? The US government is too powerful to most people, it's culture is insidious in foriegn lands. We need some checks and balances in a world of a lone superpower? What better than world public opinion? Where are my nukes?

I mentioned to Mudhooks that an attack on someones country or culture could be seen as an attack. Maybe anti-Americanism is born out of the perception that ones country is under assault by US policies and culture. There is a lot of resentment towards the US in the world right now, just at a time when the US ramps up overseas military activity.

I'll get reading that link anhaga.

Ste

Here's an interesting article linking anti-globalisation to anti-Americanism... http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030827.shtml



Ste

I think it's possible to discuss American institutions and habits without being a racist. It's all in how the questions are asked, and how the answers are handled.

When you talk about "America" and all its problems, you're including the people. You can't talk about a people in a generalizing way, especially not American people, because we're so very diverse. But you can begin to talk about its problems individually... foreign policy, religious influence, globalization, or whatever else. You can even talk about prevailing attitudes, so long as you identify that you're talking about particular segments of the population and not the population as a whole.

For instance, if I said, "I've encountered a lot of anti-American bigotry on this site," then you know I'm talking about specific individuals I have personally encountered, and that it does not necessarily reflect on anyone I happen to be talking to at that particular time. We can then discuss it in a rational manner. If I decided instead to say, "The British are racist," then I'm talking about everyone of British nationality, painting them with the same brush. Those who are British and are not racist would be offended... and indeed, should be. And the racists would probably be offended, too.

It's all about the language we choose to employ.

sadly, Blatherskite, I think I must agree with you (not sad to agree with you, particularly -- I have no objection to agreeing with you. The truth you speak is, I find, a sad one.) Since I started the bloody thing, I'm going to hang around in case it needs steering.

But I do fear that a coherent discussion of the positives and negatives of some of these topics (the U. S. government, the U. S. constitution, etc.) may be impossible without there being some kneejerking on both sides.

Then we'll control it. I got annoyed at Mudhooks posts and let it show. I got called on it. I stopped and moved on.

Let's try and discuss anti-Americanism, what it is and why it's happening all over the world in a rational manner. That's what the ODS is for, no? This was set up as a sort of escape from Ask h2g2, we shouldn't shy away from topics that we think will cause heated debate. As long as the heat is controlled and doesn't decend into flaming (like what I did there, clever eh? ) then it's surely ok.

Maybe we should appoint a chairman/woman/person/thing to oversee the debates. A neutral who can call people when they overstep our stated boundaries.

Ste

Just so we all know, I'm going to be away for a week at the beginning of October.

Here's a paraphrase of Amy Chua's argument in the book I mentioned:

Throughout history a number of societies have had what Chua calls "market dominant minorities". When such societies have rapidly converted from some sort of oligarchic controlled economy to a democratic free market there has consistently been one of two results: the market dominant minority has felt threatened and shut down the democracy and the free market, or the majority has risen up with its new democratic freedoms and slaughtered (metaphorically or actually) the minority. She offers a number of case studies. The relevance of Chua's thesis to the present discussion is that at present America and Americans are the global market dominant minority and there is a great push around the world to rapidly convert societies to free market democracies. According to Chua's argument, we should expect either America to clamp down on civil liberties around the world, or, the world to rise up against America. It is a very cautionary book.

I may be being cynical, but in my experiance people like to complain and argue, the bigger the target the more voiciferous the complaints. The USA is, in terms of polotics, the biggest of targets. It could be argued that the UN is a larger target, but it is also commonly percieved as being dominated by the USA, reason for that is that the USA has a large impact upon the UN and the UN has almost none upon the USA.
Obviously this isn't the only reason, but I believe it contributes to anti-Americanism.

On the idea of a chair person, is it not accepted that anyone seeing flamming or whatever you might wish to call it, will comment, and hopefuly such will be sufficient reminder to be polite and keep emotional content to a minimum ?
Though perhaps it should be clearly stated that stepping into a mess along those lines is acceptable, if not expected.

Math

"it is also commonly percieved as being dominated by the USA"

I've heard this perception expressed a number of times around H2G2, but out here in the real world I don't think I've ever heard it. From where I am the US is perceived to be something of an annoyance to the UN, mainly because of its pesky and so often used veto and because of its sometime habit of not paying its dues. But really, I've never heard it said anywhere but on a few threads around here that the US "dominates" the UN. In fact, the UN pretty much goes about its business and ignores the US for the most part. I spend a good deal of my time reading news from the UN newsservice and of course from other news sources, and rarely do I here much mention of the US in relation to the UN except in very specific contexts (Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Liberia for a minute. But the UN does a heck of a lot more than just tinkering around with the areas of interest to the US.

And, in the real world, people really do take shots at the UN. Ask the people of Rawanda. Ask the people of Bosnia.

You don't need a chairperson - just an <./>ACE</.> with some free time

I can only judge it as a common perception by the opinions of people who have given an opinioon on the subject. I haven't discussed it with all the people I know, but those with whom I have discussed it have taken that view.
I think it is clear that the USA exerts a great influance on the UN as you suggest by use of its veto, and no doubt by other diplomatic means.
I have seen little impact of the UN on the USA.
Which is why I take that view.

Math

Okay. I'll try to stay in control.

"in my experiance people like to complain and argue, the bigger the target the more voiciferous the complaints. The USA is, in terms of polotics, the biggest of targets . . . Obviously this isn't the only reason, but I believe it contributes to anti-Americanism"

Yes, the joy of complaining and arguing contributes and the US is a big target. But the first fact is of absolutely miniscule importance compared to the nature of the large target that the US has become. People who write "no democracy and no watermelons" on an Iraqi wall are not just having fun complaining: they feel that they were promised democracy and prosperity and it hasn't come. They're mad because they don't have democracy and they don't have watermelons. They're mad at the British, too. And the Danes. And the UN. My country has had to contend through its history with interference from the US in its elections and in its foriegn policy. That makes me pretty upset. I'd be upset if Bosnia had been doing the interfering. We've been upset about illegal fishing by the Spanish and we've yelled about it.
Yes, some people enjoy complaining. But that fact does not indicate that there are no legitimate complaints. Bringing up the miniscule contribution that idle complainers contribute to the convocation of concern about US policies does nothing to help this discussion and feels, from here, to be an attempt to dismiss legitimate grievances. I am truly restraining myself. I found the suggestion somewhat offensive. I've had legitimate grievances dismissed here before. It is not pleasant.

BTW Can we find a different term from anti-Americanism? Perhaps "expressions of grievance with the US".

I apologise Anhaga, I was taking anti-Americanism to be the opinions of people outside of direct complaints and issues.

Clearly the cases you present are as indeed you have said legitimate concerns, and I did not consider them to be anti-Americanisms. I had no intent to undermine or belittle such concerns, and as my words have been taken in such meaning you have my deepest apologies.

Sorry

Math

The US government and businesses have a lot of goals and interests beyond the borders of the US. The UN does exert a strong influence on those, thwarting them on a regular basis. Your average citizen in the US does not feel the influence of the UN... it's the executive branch and corporate interests that do.

The US executive branch, in turn, thwarts the UN with its Security Council veto. Both sides criticize each other often. It's a strained relationship.

"(not sure about Canada and NZ, but I assume so)" why do you assume so? if we from Canada or NZ assume anything about the US then there is no shortage of people here in h2g2 to jump on us. Defend your assumption and by it you lumping of a diverse group. - does that sound familiar ste?

************

"Stupid isolated event."
"Isolated horrific incident." - you're an intelligent man ste. What do you call a grouping of 'isolated events'?

************

"But you don't do you? It goes further. You make it sound like it's the UN or something." - that almost sounds like you're saying the US is more diverse than the 191 member UN

Sorry ste, honestly I'm not picking on you. These's a lot to read from overnight and I'm getting back to it. I don't know if I'll stick around though as I see blatherskite is further down the page.

oh, Math, get off your knees, silly!

I don't have any time for empty bellyachers, either. But what I was really hoping to discuss here is the real, substantial feelings of grievance, but I've said that before. Perhaps getting away fromm the term anti-americanism will help.

Blatherskite:

Right, again.

I feel it should also be mentioned that the UN has little effect on any country if that country doesn't agree to be effected. Many UN members (most?) have chosen to be full partners in the UN organization, accepting the ideal of collective security and cooperative development even if it means giving up some degree of sovereignty. But the UN has no military to impose its will. If the UN has an issue with a member state, it must depend on its members to enforce that will and for the most part it depends on the member with which it has the issue to enforce the will on itself. (that was a bad sentence.) The point is, the UN is a really big treaty organization, not some kind of world government. Countries who are influenced by the UN to a certain extent have agreed to be influenced.

Perhaps one could argue the same thing about countries which are heavily influenced by the US.

Ste:

keep reading. It's okay. We're getting along.

There are countries which are heavily influenced by the US for their own reasons... whatever those might be. But there are also those who are influenced by the US because the US has things that they need.

A good example would be Japan. As a huge net exporter, they require access to US markets. Most Favored Nation trading status is vital to their economy. The US government doesn't have to use it as a blackmail tool... simply reminding them a debt is owed can get all sorts of favors.

And then there's Japan's national defense, provided by the US... a concession not to be taken lightly with neighboring China feeling strong.

The US exercises a lot of influence by providing things like this that countries need, then asking for concessions down the road. And often times, that asking isn't very polite. A recent example was a threat to cut military aid to Israel unless certain Israeli policies were reversed.

The UN does not have the ability to use its influence in this way, unless a strong, united front is presented... in other words, not often. Though the UN may ask for a concession, they have little to offer in return unless it is provided by the member states. The US has economic and defense forces the UN cannot hope to match, so it cannot influence in the same ways. Peer pressure is the UN's primary tool, and one easily ignored by the individualistic.

one more
"the USA has a large impact upon the UN" Like Anhaga I've only ever heard this said by americans or in h2g2.

it's like the "damned if we do damned if we don't argument" which is usually supported by "they want us there". Used to defend the self appointed world police role.

It's another argument I've only seen supported by americans, zagreb and the extreem right wing.

Wait, it ties in with the thread. A grievance often is that america's government and to an extent doesn't actually listen to what the world says or to sources that aren't american.

as an aside. I've found the talk about motivations behind the language used in this thread slightly more interesting than the topic itself.

Ooops!

My last post (not to slight Ste) was intended for Apparition.

Apparition:

continue reading. we're getting along. Oh, I see you have. Good.


Blatherskite:

Right. (didn't I just say that?)

I'm getting confused. I've spent the last two hours catching up on backlogs on various threads. I don't know who I'm talking to anymore.

Sorry.

"The US has economic and defense forces the UN cannot hope to match" - you wouldn't be confusing singular power with the combined world would you?

The USA is not more power than the world. It is agrubaly more powerful than any *single* state.

The previous is a missconception that causes many problems, I think.